The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There is no fault leading up to the Council’s decision that it will not pay for a child’s school lunches. The child’s Education, Health and Care plan does not specify the Council should pay lunch costs. And the Ombudsman cannot resolve the disagreement over the interpretation of a point of law, as this is ultimately for the courts to decide if both parties cannot agree.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains the Council has not paid the fees for her son, Y’s, lunches. Y has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan which names an independent mainstream school. Miss X says this has meant that she has had to pay the lunch fees.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I read the papers put in by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Key facts Y has an EHC plan. This names an independent mainstream school but there is no mention of lunch fees.
Miss X argues the Council should pay the termly lunch fees (£255) for Y.
In its response to Miss X’s official complaint the Council said Y is at an independent mainstream school with a full time teaching assistant. The Council said lunch provision does not fall within the scope of the EHC plan. So, the Council did not agree to pay Y’s lunch or uniform costs. The Council said that children with special educational needs are not eligible to have meals paid for unless they have gastronomic needs affecting their education, for example, the need for tube feeding.
Miss X has argued that several legal points could be interpreted as requiring the Council to fund lunches. The Council has said it does not agree with her interpretation of the legal points she has made.
My analysis The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
There is no mention of the Council paying for lunches in the EHC plan, so I cannot find fault on this point. The Council has said that Miss X could provide a packed lunch if she does not want to pay for lunches or could contact the school to discuss a payment plan.
Miss X and the Council disagree on the interpretation of points of law. Miss X argues they mean the Council should pay for lunches, the Council says they do not. The Ombudsman cannot resolve disagreements on points of law, this is ultimately for the courts to do. So, I am not able to make a decision on whose interpretation of the law is correct.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as I have found no evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman